[rhombus]

Thanks for your reply...

Yes I know where spending comes from but the White House submits a budget. The biggest thing I saw there that would cause all sorts of pain was the highway money. I don’t argue for it or even it’s legitimacy. I just know that the States depend on it and the Feds have used these moneys to get all sorts of things pushed through reluctant States. There’s a huge number of jobs tied up in those moneys and people who lose those jobs won’t give a twit for your ideology when they can’t pay their mortgages.

Doing away with the state of the union speech is hardly a crucial issue. However, in today’s media obsessed world, it would be foolish. I hated President (as Paul would be) needs every media advantage he can get.

So what will Paul do on Iraq? Why did you skip that and insult me for “not paying attention”? Why not just clear it up? The President does have direct powers in this area. Of course you saw this...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Liberals_Vow_to_Block_Continued_Iraq_Funding.html

[George W. Bush]

Yes I know where spending comes from but the White House submits a budget. The biggest thing I saw there that would cause all sorts of pain was the highway money. I don’t argue for it or even it’s legitimacy. I just know that the States depend on it and the Feds have used these moneys to get all sorts of things pushed through reluctant States. There’s a huge number of jobs tied up in those moneys and people who lose those jobs won’t give a twit for your ideology when they can’t pay their mortgages.

RP would probably support the current interstate system. He would probably not support the ever-expanding federalization of highway systems, some of them which are not even interstate corridors but actually just state highways. And he would probably advocate for increased use of toll roads such as you currently see in Texas and on the east coast. If you won't take this position, then you invite Robert Byrd to use his position to pave over the entire surface of his state with federal money even though those roads mostly are used for people to move out of his loser state. Or to spend $250 million on a Bridge To Nowhere for 50 people on an unimportant island off Alaska. Take your pick. I'd bet that most people will support RP's position. I think RP would let states set their own speed limits too. And he would probably support reduced spending but grant the governors more authority and fewer restrictions on how to spend the block-granted funds. This is just how I read his overall statements and voting record.

Doing away with the state of the union speech is hardly a crucial issue. However, in today’s media obsessed world, it would be foolish. I hated President (as Paul would be) needs every media advantage he can get.

Ron Paul would return the presidency to an office you don't hear from all that much. Daily press briefings at the White House would probably be abolished entirely, maybe a weekly or monthly press conference but with routine written statements on President Paul's policy positions. In essence, the day-to-day business of the country would be conducted by Congress. Oh, and the White House wouldn't be a motel for fundraising. He might even abolish the White House tours and simply return it to being the president's private residence (although some of the historic furnishings and paintings might be placed in a museum for the public to view). Personally, I would prefer such a presidency. In general, Ron Paul would abolish nearly all the trappings of the imperial presidency as we have known it under the national security state implemented since WW II.

One of the reasons why I support these things so much is that it would force us to take our vote for Congress and Senate much more seriously. The role of the president has become so large that it distorts our system of checks and balances and it lets Congress dump too many of its actual responsibilities on the president so they don't have to be responsible for their own actions.

So what will Paul do on Iraq? Why did you skip that and insult me for “not paying attention”? Why not just clear it up? The President does have direct powers in this area. Of course you saw this...

He would withdraw in short order. He probably could be persuaded to leave much of our equipment for the Iraqis to use and might allow a sizable group of police and military trainers (no combatants) to remain to help the Iraqis. They are, at least on paper, a democracy and we should not abandon them. But his patience for their progress would be very short indeed.

And he didn't oppose the war in Iraq because we didn't declare war. He opposed it because Iraq posed no credible threat to us. And he was right.